Re: [Mldonkey-users] Release 2.5-4

[Fortin Denis]

Le ven 10/10/2003 à 16:07, Roland Arendes a écrit :
> Hi Denis,
> 
> >> I tested this patch in the past: #1765 (limit-reqs DANGER) and it seems
> >> that my observations were correct. As Simon already stated, this patch
> >> is
> >> not very good and should be removed from the stable release. My donkey
> >> doesn't download anything except Bittorrent at the moment.
> > It works for me.
> > The question is :
> > 1) should we try to send to every client a request for every file we
> > have in queue
> > or
> > 2) only to files that this client advertized (and that we want).
> 
> I agree to this, mldonkey is sending too much requests. But the patch does
> not seem to work very good - or, if you're sure it does, then your theory
> does not work out.
> 

This is the main change of this patch : 
if Ip.valid s.Q.ip && Ip.reachable s.Q.ip then 
-                ignore (DonkeySources.new_source (s.Q.ip, s.Q.port) file)
+                (
+                 let s = DonkeySources.new_source (s.Q.ip, s.Q.port) file in 
+                   DonkeySources.add_source_request s file 0 File_possible;
+               )
When we query for files we check that we have a file to request if not
we send requests of all files we have in download. 
The problem is that when a new client connect to us he advertize the
file he wants and we don't record this file/source association and so we
will request to this client all the files in our downloads. Same thing
for source exchanged clients.
Maybe i'm wrong with
DonkeySources.add_source_request s file 0 File_possible;
(b8_bavard, simon, pango and others can you tell me if it is ok to do
such a thing?)

With this patch applied i have a lot more downloads from mldonkey peers
than before.

> > Pro/cons :
> > 1) The more files we have in queue the more requests you will send (and
> > thus less useful upload).
> > Having monitored edonkey traffic i can say that there is a _lot_ of
> > FileNotFound  answers to those requests.
> 
> I saw that, too. Did you receive these clients from a server you're
> connected to or via client propagation?
> 
> > For now i think that we should keep this patch in release. But we can
> > think of alternative solutions like :
> 
> I think we should keep the idea, but not this certain patch.
> 
> > implement the new udp protocol between client and server to have more
> > sources (where are those damn specs!!!)
> 
> Yep, agree. I'm sure lugdunummaster will give the specs to the coder (like
> he did with the emule people), in his own interest (minimizing traffic).
> 
> > Or like i stated in the thread of this patch : implement a sort of
> > "group of files" (+ automatic grouping via levenstein distance between
> > file names : if LevDist(That_TV_Show_101.avi,That_TV_Show_102.avi) <
> > !max_levenstein_distance then ask for both files).
> 
> I remember there was already such a grouping function in edonkey2000 some
> time ago? It seems to be dropped because nobody used it. The automation
> via the levenstein distance sounds interesting to me.
I was wrong, it's Levenshtein Distance.


> -Roland


Denis